Psych SCT

Discussion Posts and Replies provide you with an opportunity to engage with your classmates by applying content from the course to psychological science and current issues. I'll post each week's discussion content and prompt during the week before it is due. You'll post a response to the prompt and reply to at least one of your classmate's reponses. I'll grade these using a rubric that assesesses, 1) how well organized the ideas in your response are, 2) how well your response demonstrates an understanding of the content you're responding to, 3) how well your response demonstrates a clear understanding of the prompt, 4) how well your response demonstrates an understanding of the chapter the discussion is assigned for, 5) how well your response creates opportunities for conversation, 6) how well your response adheres to this course's ground rules for discusssion boards, 7) how well organized the ideas in your replies to classmates are, 8) how well your reply to your classmates demonstrates an understanding of their response, 9) how well your reply to your classmates demonstrates an understanding of the chapter the discussion is assigned for, and 10) how well your replies adhere to this course's ground rules for discusssion boards. Responses to my post should be somewhere in the range of 200-400 words and replies to classmates posts should be in the range of 100-200 words.

When discussing ideas, I encourage you to consider taking a different perspective than the one you actually hold. It will help you better understanding various perspectives, their rationale, where the gaps in reasoning are, and how to respond to those gaps.

Develop an argument for or against the UWT vaccine requirement. In doing so, clearly label your claim and evidence.

One way to respond to someone's argument is to offer a counterargument. If responding to someone's argument with a counterargument, clearly label the claim and evidence you're responding to as well as your counterclaim and counterevidence.

Another option for responding to someone's argument is to identify a thinking or argumentation error, describe and label it, and then offer a way to fix or avoid it.

As a reminder, when discussing ideas, I encourage you to consider taking a different perspective than the one you actually hold. It will help you better understand various perspectives, their rationale, where the gaps in reasoning are, and how to respond to those gaps.